Dont join the Army - theyre bullies.

#1
I strongly suggest you take a deep breath and sit down before reading this.

On p16 of The Daily Telegraph in the 'Ask John Clare' section:

Q: My 16-year-old son wants to join the Army. What are his chances of learning a trade?

A: Slim, according to the Adult Learning Inspectorate's recent, shocking report on training in the Armed Forces. It found that more than 5,000 of the 15,000 who join the Army every year drop out during initial training, at a cost of about £30 million a year. The causes include 'barracks little better than slums' (avoid Catterick and Deepcut at all costs); a training regime that causes an unacceptable number of injuries; a culture of bullying (avoid Bassingbourn, Winchester, Pirbright, Harrogate and especially Deepcut) affecting at least one recruit in 10 (the number of complainants is 'too low to be credible'); and a dysfunctional training regime run by largely untrained instructors who dismiss their work as 'babysitting' and regard the welfare of their recruits as the 'antithesis of effective military training'.

Littlw wonder then that the Army has difficulty recruiting anyone with a literacy better than that 'normally associated with a 7 year old'. (In Iraq, inspectors came across a bomb disposal technician who could not read the instructions on his equipment.)

Many recruits felt that they had been given a rosier picture of service life than they found to be reality' the report says. 'They were ill-prepared for what they see as verbal of physical abuse, poor living conditions or harsh treatment that appears gratuitous, and felt mislead or disillusioned'.

Encourage your son to think again.
This makes my blood boil. Weary cynicism about the Army (something we're all guilty of) is one thing - but this is blatantly one-sided reportage from a rag that should know better.

We are not a fcuking Outreach programme - we train to fight the Queen's enemies and kill them. As a by-product, we need to train people to do it. Although I'm far too angry to be remotely coherent right now, I will never buy that rag again. I am even writing to them pointing out a few 'inconsistencies'.

Disgraceful.
 
#2
let us know if "The Torygraph" responds to your letter
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#3
Well, I 'm sorry, but that's just the impression that people are getting - this is why the young Tommy is not joining anymore, as Mummy won't let him.

Recent publicity regarding Deepcut, Bullying, etc., reflects very, very badly on the Army as a whole. Deepcut, especially, has nearly destroyed public confidence.

Don't blame the Torygraph - John Clare is usually a sensible columnist. He is, after all, quoting from reports prepared as a result of public concern - he, and anyone else, are free to read them. Blame instead the system that trains young, unprepared men and women to Recruit standard, and then leaves them in poor accomodation, with little to do, for a long time until a Trade Course is avaialable. As to injuries - he is again stating facts. A lot of recruits are injured - but why is another matter (too soft a life beforehand? - plenty is being done to address this.)

Don't shoot the messenger. We can't afford - especially at the present time - to be too divorced from the 'real world', no matter how much we may not like it's views.
 
#4
Words fail me. I sometimes wonder what the hell we do our job for. At EVERY turn this country proves it isn't worth the effort. Roll on our subsumation into Greater Europe/the Islamic Nation/Lesser Albania, England is morally bankrupt and you can have it.
 
#5
OldSnowy said:
We can't afford - especially at the present time - to be too divorced from the 'real world', no matter how much we may not like it's views.
Snowy - no probs with this at all. My issue is that he responds to the question by quoting exclusively from one report. If he had balanced it with other inputs, I wouldn't be so bothered - everyone has an opinion after all.

I agree that John Clare is usually fairly sensible - but he has done himself no favours at all here.
 
#6
I cannot even think to give a reason response to that drivel, Mr Clare, whoever the fcuk he is, should know better than to belittle the Queens best.
Obviously he has had a bad experience with the militiary. That report is something I would probably read on the Uniform 17 forum(I think that is it name). I am disgusted that the editor of the Telegraph let this reply go through. It will also send out alot of bad vibs to potential recruits, although I can't see that many of them reading the telegraph (boring sh1t paper with no t1ts), so that is maybe a God send.

Who on earth is the Adult Learning Inspectorite, I am going to see if I can their web page.

Littlw wonder then that the Army has difficulty recruiting anyone with a literacy better than that 'normally associated with a 7 year old'. (In Iraq, inspectors came across a bomb disposal technician who could not read the instructions on his equipment.)
I thought we had quite a good entry level, he obviously does not. What inspectors were out in Iraq, the ALI, I do not think so. He is ranting away without the slightest bit of back up.

I will e-mailing the Sh1tegraph, as to why this was allowed to be published, and to where Mr Clare has obtained this damming, but untrue, information. :evil:

I believe in freedom of speech, but this is lying and ranting.
 
#7
I fully agree with you Calypso.

I'm from military family and literally all my close relatives are (were) in Russian (Soviet) army. I was born in garrison and spent my childhood with other sons and daughters of officers.

Blackmouthing of Army in Russia is a serious problem too. Mostly not ethnically Russian 'journalists' are super-active in this dirty business.

As to Telegraph then it and Guardian are the best newspapers in the UK. Our friend Agent_Smith called Telegraph as ToryGraph. I guess he is right. I heard another definition - TelAvivaGraph.

Regards!
 
#8
What he has stated is in essence true, but what he fails to do is offer a balanced report which highlights that good along with the bad in order that the reader can make up their opwn mind. Why didnt he go and speak to men and women in the army and see how they actually feel about life on the inside rather than speak to those who have failed through injury or unsuitability?

Just smacks of poor journalism to me! :roll:
 
#9
ducati916 said:
I thought we had quite a good entry level, he obviously does not. What inspectors were out in Iraq, the ALI, I do not think so. He is ranting away without the slightest bit of back up.
The committee took evidence from Rear Admiral Goodall, who said that “the Army in particular...has a significant problem with basic skills provision.”

Goodall told the committee that “ ‘very few’ applicants had a reading age of seven, but those with a reading age of 11 were not uncommon.” MoD figures cited in this section reveal that 50 percent of all recruits entering the army have literacy or numeracy skills at levels on or below Entry Level Three—the equivalent reading ability expected of an 11-year-old. According to the report, it was not until April 2004 “that applicants with the equivalent of a reading age of a five-year-old have been rejected.”

http://wsws.org/articles/2005/apr2005/army-a07.shtml
not an ideal website to quote from.

msr
 
#10
This is my point entirely A_S. We suffer constantly diminshing funds; a hierarchy that cares less and less about 'the shop floor' and more about peerages and perks; less interest from politicans and so on, yet we consistently deliver returns far in excess of any input. How would any of this be possible in an atmosphere of organised bullying, racism and stupidity that is alluded to here?

I love the conceit that the low reports of bullying are 'too low to be credible'. What fcuking tosh - this is journo speak for 'we didn't like what we were told so we rubbished them'. Has it occurred to these muppets that we (the Army) would gain NOTHING from falsifying bullying statistics - and potentially lose everything in the long term.

Well Mr Clare - my opinion is that someone in your wretched in-bred family has recently failed to get into the Army - citing 'weak bones' or something similar - and now you're bitter and twisted.

Get a life, you cnut.

Edited to add: msr - no issue with our 'raw material' - this has always been the case after all - it's what we turn these people into that counts!
 
B

benjaminw1

Guest
#11
KGB_resident said:
I fully agree with you Calypso.

I'm from military family and literally all my close relatives are (were) in Russian (Soviet) army. I was born in garrison and spent my childhood with other sons and daughters of officers.

Blackmouthing of Army in Russia is a serious problem too. Mostly not ethnically Russian 'journalists' are super-active in this dirty business.

As to Telegraph then it and Guardian are the best newspapers in the UK. Our friend Agent_Smith called Telegraph as ToryGraph. I guess he is right. I heard another definition - TelAvivaGraph.

Regards!
Otherwise Known as the Jerusalem Post.
 
#12
msr said:
The committee took evidence from Rear Admiral Goodall, who said that “the Army in particular...has a significant problem with basic skills provision.”

Goodall told the committee that “ ‘very few’ applicants had a reading age of seven, but those with a reading age of 11 were not uncommon.” MoD figures cited in this section reveal that 50 percent of all recruits entering the army have literacy or numeracy skills at levels on or below Entry Level Three—the equivalent reading ability expected of an 11-year-old. According to the report, it was not until April 2004 “that applicants with the equivalent of a reading age of a five-year-old have been rejected.”

http://wsws.org/articles/2005/apr2005/army-a07.shtml
not an ideal website to quote from.

msr
Surely this has always been true though? Why would someone with 14 GCSEs, 5 A Levels and a Degree join the Army to earn £13,000 a year when they could be on £40,000 plus in civvie street. It's a fact that to get in certain Corps you don't need any qualifications, and you can earn (for someone with no qualifications) decent money, with cheap housing, "free" food and an opportunity to see places that a kid growing up in somewhere like inner city Liverpool, Newcastle or Glasgow can only dream of (even today, when most of the good postings have been closed down or scaled back). To poorer people, the Army is a chance to escape without asking for any academic qualifications, to the richer or luckier people, the Army is something that pays a third of what a civillian company would pay, for longer hours, far more more danger, more inconvinience and (especially for the "Playstation Generation") discipline and physical effort.
 
B

benjaminw1

Guest
#13
Also, having seen training/education on both sides of the fence, as it were, I would say the army has better results for your average yoof than state schools.
 
#14
Here's the sentence before the bit I quoted:

Statistics on reading abilities cited in the committee confirm that the army tends to recruit overwhelmingly from the poorest and most disadvantaged layers of young people

And here is the paragraph after:

Nonetheless, the committee commended the army’s “highly trained, capable and successful service personnel,” concurring favourably with Professor Wessely’s remarks that “they [soldiers] are not like middle-aged academics or Maudsley social workers. They are somewhat tough people and they are to do a difficult job of fighting, not emoting. Part of that is that they learn to repress emotions and fear.”

Like it or not, there is clearly a public perception that the Army is not a good career choice at the moment and no amount of huffing and puffing on this board will change that.

msr
 
#15
Hmmm. Facts are facts, and as a troopy I know that the reading and writing ability of some of the soliders is not good. BUT whose fault is that, the Army which is the employer or the state education system that teaches them in the first place.
Soldiers do not join the army with a certain reading age and then mysteriously lose it. The education system, for whatever reason, has failed them long before they join up.
In recent years teh army has addressed this - the whole CLM approach and we will see where we get with that.
 
#16
And another thing ...

We have to treat recruits with kid gloves in training - Harrogate, nice rooms, nice facilities etc. Then the soldiers come to a real working environment with all that entails. perhaps it would be better to make training more like the real world and so they would get more realistic idea. If they then want to leave in training then Regts don't have to put up with people who should never have been there in the first place!
 
#17
msr said:
Like it or not, there is clearly a public perception that the Army is not a good career choice at the moment and no amount of huffing and puffing on this board will change that.

msr
msr - utter crap. 'Public perception' at the moment is that the Army (and the Armed Forces) do a bloody worthwhile job in grubby and frankly dangerous circumstances - and do it well. They do it because our people are the best at what they do. Full stop. If you believe otherwise, then what are you doing moderating an (unofficial) Army website?

This is not about my personal opinion or John Clare's. This is about a totally inaccurate and biased bit of reportage being passed off as bleeding edge fact - it isn't.

'Public perception' is not the issue here - there is a small caucus of disaffected types lurking on the Street of Shame that never pass up the chance to denigrate the service.

msr - think carefully. If you believe what this article says, then why are you bothering to draw pay as a TA/Res bloke? I reserve the right to 'huff and puff' as a member of the smallest club in the world - perhaps if you ever qualify, you may be fit to comment on what we - the Army - are all about.

OUT.
 
#18
Typical jurnos. Only speak to those with an axe to grind and fail to talk to the vast majority who are happy. However, some of what he says is right but he is pinning the blame on the wrong chaps.

Yes literacy standards are low in the army. That is a fact. However, I bet that the literacy standards of other employers who regularly take in a large number of school leavers, many without GCSE passes, is also very low.

Yes, the barracks we house are troops in are cr*p, in some locations. I have seen accom that I wouldn't keep a dog in. What it doesn't say is that there is a programme to improve accom for all soldiers. Give us a huge pot of money and we'll all live in palacial pads.

As for bullying it is always easy to highlight the army. Go to any business and you will find huge amounts of bullying. I personnally have never come across bullying in the army but acknowledge it goes on. However, the army does not condone it and neither does it turn a blind eye. Any commander worth his salt will not tolerate such activities.

Instructors who don't know their subjects and don't want to do their jobs. again, it does happen but in isolated cases. The majority I have met/ worked with have been dedicated, professional and enthusiastic individuals.

Does Mr John "Cnut" Clare have any experience of the army? Has he ever talked to anyone in the army? Or is this man yet another who will jump on the bandwagon as it is much easier than leaving his PC to go and actually report on the subject. I could sit there and spout facts from a report. Earn your money and get out and report.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear IdleAdjt

My son is thinking of joining the Daily Telegraph as a jurno, should I let him.

Your

(Name and address supplied)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Daer Mrs ?????????

My advice would be to not let your son join the Daily Telegraph as they seem to employ jurnos who appear to be biased, lazy and unbalanced cnuts. I base this assertation purely on one article I read but can't be arrsed to find out more.

I hope this helps

IdleAdjt
 
#19
I always thought that the point of training was to make everything else seem easy in comparison.
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#20
Calypso -

Again, don't shoot the Messenger! MSR is, sadly, quite correct. The public do see the Army doing a very difficult job well, but AT THE SAME TIME there is a perception that the Army is not a good career choice. Recruiting - both TA and Regular - is in a very parlous state.

Again, we cannot afford to stay insulated form the real world. Most of the UK don't want us to be in Iraq, and this has affected us. I happen to think we've done a wonderful job there, but I'm part of a minoroty. Just because a tabloid has a large spread on the amazing achievements of Pte Beharry VC one day, doesn't mean that the next day they won't be baying for blood after Deepcut, or printing faked photos (thank you, Piers Morgan - whose smirking features now crop up on TV - mainly BBC - more than ever now). They'll print anything that will sell their tat, and mud sticks for a long time.

Recruiting is poor because, as MSR stated, it is NOT seen as a good career choice. It's up to all of us to do our best to change this.
 

Latest Threads

Top